In Matthew 19:9, the paraphrasing of the word "fornication' to mean "marital unfaithfulness" was an extremely incompetent paraphrasing.

"Marital" and "unfaithfulness" are two separate words: neither of which were used in the Greek.
"Marital unfaithfulness" means adultery, plain and simple. The Greek word for adultery was not in the exception clause.

But look carefully at the full context of the verse. The last clause, fully connected to the rest of the verse, underlined below, has to have a practical meaning:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.Matthew 19;9

These are questions that must be able to be answered with regard to that inseparable last clause in order to validate that the verse is sanctioning divorce for adultery. By assigning an interpretation of fornication to mean adultery in this context, the rest of the sentence, the grammar and meaning, would fully support that interpretation if it was in fact correct. Plain and simple, that is how language works.

The last clause/part of Matthew 19:9
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Assuming that "fornication" in the exception clause means adultery and therefore Jesus allows divorce for adultery; can it be true that this last clause refers to the woman divorced for adultery? If that is true, then wouldn't that mean that her husband who divorced her must still be designated as her husband in order for adultery to be committed by the man who marries her? This creates the awkward need to justify her still being married to him, while he is free to marry another lawfully. How can she still be married to him while as he is not married to her, which free status is necessary in order for him to be able to marry another?

So under this assumption that fornication means adultery in Matthew 19:9, the marriage is allowably terminated (which is what divorce means) for her adultery and therefore the man can marry afterwards and it is not adultery, as the grammar dictates. But the woman who he divorced for adultery cannot get married because if she does, any man marrying her commits adultery by so doing. So the quagmire this assumption creates, (the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce), is found in this question: What man is she still married to that necessitates the charge of adultery against the man who would marry her?
Shouldn't an explanation of the 'exception clause' that does not create a quagmire, but rather provides a simply understood meaning of that last clause/part, be worthy of consideration?

Shouldn't this alternative working explanation be seriously considered; especially in light that it is in full agreement with Luke 16;18, which is basically identical to Matthew 19:9, but without the exception clause?
Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Both Matthew 19;9 and Luke 16:18 have basically the identical same last clause, yet only Matthew's has the exception clause. Under the the assumption that the exception is for adultery, it is then reasonable for the meaning of the last part to pivot on that assumption.
Under the reasonable assumptions,
1) that the same last clause must possess the same meaning in both verses, and that
2) Matthew did not write something grammattically incompetent,
the following question must needs be answered:

How can the same last clause have the same meaning in a verse wherein there is no exception clause present for its meaning to pivot on?
Interpreting fornication to mean adultery in Matthew 19:9 creates this dilemna, as it also creates the above named quagmire. This is further evidence that assigning 'adultery' as the meaning of fornication in Matthew 19:9 is incorrect.

Why assigning 'adultery' to be the meaning of 'fornication', in this context, messes everything up

Interpreting the word fornication to mean adultery creates a scenario of blame, and reason to divorce based on the one being wronged by the other. This creates conflict between the supposed 'right' of the innocent, against the guilt of the offender. This then spills over to make it necessary to have the last clause reflect a result of this conflict between the two.
In reality, however, the bond of marriage is not based on condition that both parties behave themselves; it is based rather on the example and pattern of the first marriage, wherein only death had the power to terminate that bond. The mindset that Jesus holds the view that the bond of marriage is in fact based on condition that both parties behave themselves, is created by the misunderstanding that he assigned an offense worthy of termination.
We can be confident that Jesus did no such thing, not only by his emphasis on forgiveness and against hardness of hearts, but also by His plain statement, "let not man put asunder" which prohibits a man terminating his marriage by divorce.

The explanation of the 'exception clause' that does not create quagmires or dilemnas holds to the scriptural integrity that the bond of marriage is not based on condition that the parties behave themselves. This explanation does not suggest a right of one over and against the other because of their behaviour: It fully supports that the bond of marriage is based on the pattern established at the beginning of the creation wherein only death terminated their status as husband and wife.
The last clause, therefore, has nothing to do with reflecting a result of conflict between the two. That last clause has the identical meaning in all 3 verses where it is found:

Any man marrying a wife divorced from her lawfully married husband commits adultery for as long as that husband is alive. The reason for her divorce is totally irrelevant.

This plain meaning is strongly suggested by the plain wording in the last clause in all three verses:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Matthew 5:32
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:9
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18

Athanasius

May 6th 2009, 12:05 AM

I like my translation better

Matthew 19:8-9:
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Seems clear to me.

Dani H

May 6th 2009, 12:34 AM

I like my translation better

Matthew 19:8-9:
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Seems clear to me.

Amen. Clear as day.

Didn't we have this discussion before, like several dozen times? I think by now we know where everyone stands. :)

Alaska

May 6th 2009, 01:32 AM

If a word has questionable meaning in a complex context, assigning the correct meaning to that word would cause the mechanics and practical meaning of the entire sentence to appear competent. This is the natural "checks and balance" effect that a language serves with regard to determining a meaning.

I like my translation better

Matthew 19:8-9:
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Seems clear to me.

In the above quote, the last clause in verse 9 was left out.
That is the purpose of this thread to manifest that if a meaning is given to "fornication" that disallows any competent practical meaning to this last clause, then that is a manifestation that the interpretation of fornication cannot be the correct answer.
The alternative explanation of "fornication" does not create this problem with the last clause having a meaning that does not in any way fit the rest of the entire sentence.

I have been involved in many of the divorce discussions at this forum. This approach to the last clause has not at all been extensively discussed as far as I know.
I believe it would be unfair to shut this thread down because of a personal dislike for the subject matter. There are many many Christians who feel very strongly that marriage is in fact until death.
I am kindly asking you moderators to not shut this thread down because of your personal situations or beliefs.
Please allow it to remain and give those a chance who may choose to discuss the questions posed here.
Neither Xel Naga or Dani has actually attempted to answer the individual specific questions as worded. I believe they are worthy questions as many others, I believe, will agree.
There may be those who will be benefitted by the challenge.
Please allow them that liberty.

Athanasius

May 6th 2009, 01:46 AM

If a word has questionable meaning in a complex context, assigning the correct meaning to that word would cause the mechanics and practical meaning of the entire sentence to appear competent. This is the natural "checks and balance" effect that a language serves with regard to determining a meaning.

In the above quote, the last clause in verse 9 was left out.
That is the purpose of this thread to manifest that if a meaning is given to "fornication" that disallows any competent practical meaning to this last clause, then that is a manifestation that the interpretation of fornication cannot be the correct answer.
The alternative explanation of "fornication" does not create this problem with the last clause having a meaning that does not in any way fit the rest of the entire sentence.

The 'last clause in verse 9' was not left out. Above you said the following:

But look carefully at the full context of the verse. The last clause, fully connected to the rest of the verse, underlined below, has to have a practical meaning:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.Matthew 19;9
I expect then that when you speak of the 'last clause' you mean, 'and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery'. You confirm this a few sentences down from the above quote:

The last clause of Matthew 19:9
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Well, in the translation I posted (which is the lovely NASB - my favourite!) the 'last clause' is rendered:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Which is also how it is rendered in just about every translation, save the King James. Which, I expect, if we were studied in the field of etymology relating to Modern English we would understand that the rendering of the King James actually says what is rendered in the 'modern' translations. As can be plainly seen, the last clause of verse 9 fits perfectly well with the rest of the verse. The more modern translations present this verse in a perspicuous manner (told you I liked words).

Neither Xel Naga or Dani has actually attempted to answer the individual specific questions as worded. I believe they are worthy questions as many others, I believe, will agree.

Well, I mean the question needs to be proper. If your question is based on something that isn't really there... Well, then we'd want to correct that rather than entertain something illusory.

Dani H

May 6th 2009, 01:51 AM

The Message:

Matthew 19
8-9Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."

Still clear as day ...

Alaska

May 6th 2009, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2065053#post2065053)
In the above quote, the last clause in verse 9 was left out.

I agree, I should have said the last part of verse 9 was left out.
But if I understand correctly, you agree that it is very much connected to the rest of the verse.
Thereby making it necessary that a meaning be attributed to it that would be consistent to the rest of the entire verse.

The invitation is open to all who would answer the questions posed in the OP concerning this last clause/part of this verse.

Athanasius

May 6th 2009, 02:28 AM

I agree, I should have said the last part of verse 9 was left out.

The last part is there as well.

Alaska

May 6th 2009, 07:09 PM

This is Matthew 19:9 in the American Standard Version (ASV):

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

This is Matthew 19:9 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I was surprised to see how the NASB has deleted the last clause.
The NASB is the New American Standard Bible. It would appear by their names that the ASV and NASB are related.

Obviously there is no point in trying to discuss the last clause of Matthew 19:9 with anyone who believes it is not there and uses an edited so called 'bible' that has deleted it in order to substantiate their claim that it is not there. But it is there.

The last clause is found in the ASV.
Though the NASB, has removed that last clause due to adopting the theories that it is not supposed to be in there, this does not prove anything. It is there.
Even the NASB has the last clause in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 in which case the same line of questioning is still valid since the last clause cannot be made to have any competent meaning with regard to the rest of the verse as long as the word fornication is assumed to mean adultery.

The questions in the OP are obviously for those who believe that the last clause is supposed to be there.

Luke 16:18 NASB
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Matthew 5:32 NASB
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

How this last clause relates to the woman divorced for adultery, (under the assumption that adultery is grounds for divorce) is a question that destroys the theory that the word fornication in the exception clause means adultery.

The silence I expect, and have so far gotten, should be understood as a concession that there are no competent answers to the questions, which in turn shows that the divorce for adultery theory is busted.

Dani H

May 6th 2009, 08:12 PM

The silence I expect, and have so far gotten, should be understood as a concession that there are no competent answers to the questions, which in turn shows that the divorce for adultery theory is busted.
No, no it should not.

The silence you have gotten is because many of us disagree, and we have made our positions known already. I'm not quite sure what it is you're looking for?

Honestly, if you're that grieved about all the errors of all these modern English translations, then I would encourage you to get all of your data together and write to the editors of the publishing houses to forward your data to all these hundreds of well-educated Biblical scholars, and take it up with them directly, and engage in communication and discussion with them and present your case. What is posting here about it going to accomplish? If you've a personal axe to grind about modern English translations because you believe that people are being led astray and people's souls are in danger on a grand scale, and God isn't able to handle it and guide His people into truth in spite of the occasional human error (which besets all translations, including the KJV by the way), then go ahead and do so, directly at the source. Because this obviously goes far beyond marriage and divorce then, doesn't it? I would encourage you to settle this with God, and within yourself, because that is obviously something extremely important to you, and so I wish you all the best. There are millions of people in the world who use all sorts of Biblical translations in their own language, and miraculously, the Gospel is being preached and people are being saved, in all sorts of languages and countries and people groups, with the KJV nowhere being found. Yet God is God and is growing His Church all over the world, and so discussions about some clause in some English translation may actually be something He is not quite as concerned with as you, yourself are.